Replies

“...But the imperialists (on both sides) would not have been happy ...” [Leaning Right, post 3]

“...the Czar, the Kaiser, King George V, Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, ... created utter misery for no sane reason.” [DesertRhino, post 4]

“...an ongoing battle between French and German soldiers in eastern France during WW I. ... a tunnel complex. ... hacked at each other with knives, shovels, and bayonets. ... Neither country had any real grudge against the other. ...” [Leaning Right, post 5]

“... too much money to be lost by ending the war that early.” [priscilla, post 6]

“...why Britain and France were so close to each other?...” [dfwgator, post 8]

Mistaken notions, parading as received wisdom? And entirely in error on every topic save one: it is true that over the course of the 19th century the British turned to the French (their traditional foe for centuries) as the most natural ally against a rapidly rising Imperial Germany, which had been destabilizing every alliance, rivalry, and power arrangement from 1890 onward.

The German government egged on the Austrians week after week in July 1914, with hint after hint they’d back any attack on Serbia. And the Germans went to lengths to deceive the other Euro powers about what was going on.

Germans may not have had a personal grudge against the French, but their war plans (concocted by Schlieffen) designated France as a threat, which had to be taken out first, freeing the German military to concentrate on the most feared threat, Czarist Russia.

German plans never considered British intervention. When asked, German leaders dismissed any conceivable BEF out of hand: British ground forces were too small to matter, the German juggernaut marching into France would obliterate the Brits when it got to them.

Britain did intervene because Germany abrogated the treaty it agreed to: the one guaranteeing the sovereignty and security of Belgium. France, Britain, and Germany were signatories.

Just as their attack on France appeared to be succeeding, the Germans lost their nerve and withdrew to the best defensive positions the terrain afforded. In control of almost all of Belgium and major sections of France, they systematically looted civilian property and undertook reprisals against defenseless noncombatants.

If forum members still think the French had “no reason” to object to German occupation, they must rethink their understanding.

President Wilson is poormouthed for taking the country to war after campaigning on slogans like “He kept us out of war.” Try as he might, he wasn’t able. The strategic situation altered as the war lengthened. Nothing he told Congress in his speech requesting a declaration of war was untrue, and the legislature voted in favor.

Americans were unrealistic in believing they could have stayed out of it: the United States was (and is) a trading nation, and it was not possible to refrain from trading with the Allies. And there was not choice except to cease trade with the Central Powers - the Royal Navy blockaded the Continent.

And none of the financial institutions wanted to go to war in 1914: they were frightened quite thoroughly by the prospect. They were right to be afraid.

> Mistaken notions, parading as received wisdom? <

Schurmann, I actually had trouble following your post. But then again I’m just a dumb Hunky from a declining rust-belt steel mill town.

Anyway, my main point was that Germany and France had no real grudge against each other in 1914. Sure, they had their differences; great powers always have their differences. But there was no difference so great as to warrant an all-out, life-or-death struggle.

That such a struggle actually occurred is indefensible. The leaders of France, Germany, the UK, Austria-Hungary, and Russia risked everything for essentially nothing.

Of course I might be just parading more mistaken notions. But I’ve got to stop now as I have Christmas perogies on the skillet.